Yes, but is Nvidia *the* videocard maker because they have exclusive ownership through legal privilege, or because they command supply, or because of concerted action? No, they are *the* videocard maker for none of these reasons. It's not about "almost". They don't fit the definition. There is no "almost" concerted action, or "almost" command of supply, or "almost" exclusive ownership. They aren't a monopoly, that's silly.
Besides the fact that it's perfectly legal to modify your cassette player, if you could figure out how, to play CDs. That's the real crux of the issue.
The jist is right, except you're a little off with one thing. The Supreme Court has the ultimate say in how the law is defined and what can be considered a law or not, but technically, they are not in charge of enforcement. Enforcement (of federal laws) is dealt with by the executive branch.
NO. Freeloaders do not KILL contributers. They do not "take away" contributers. The resources I was referring to was the software. Anyone can take and use the software without diminishing anyone else's ability to use it.
Stop being stupid. Are you trying to say that if the software *weren't* available for free, then this "freeloader" would've been a contributer? That's crap. In fact, making the software open will likely find you more contributers.
Sorry, but your freeloader was *never* a "potential contributer". He's not taking away anything. You're equating taking away resources and not adding to resources. They're not the same. Freeloaders do not lower the number of contributers, they simply don't contribute.
He did NOT say there is no marginal cost of production. He said there is no marginal cost of DISTRIBUTION.
A freeloader is not a contributer. A freeloader is one who diminishes the availability of the resources for everyone else. Since there is no scarcity it doesn't matter if there are freeloaders.
My point is, it's not like you need one contributer for each freeloader. All you need is a certain number of contributers, and it doesn't matter how many freeloaders there are; freeloaders do not diminish what is available for everyone else.
Open source is successful even though it's just done by hobbyists, in their free time, who spend the rest of their time making money from a salary.
Imagine if public organizations funded open source programming, kind of like how universities are funded to do research. This would mean that these people who love doing open source work would be able to devote their time to it. That would be really great.
Um, actually no. I don't get caught up in grammatical flames, because I feel as long as you get the point across it's fine. Kind of like how I don't mind "Billy and me went to the store".
But if you're going to start getting technical, technically, you're wrong. "I" and "She" replace subject nouns. They are subject pronouns. "Me" and "Her" replace object pronouns.
"She gave it to me" "I gave it to her"
See how "She" becomes "Her" and "I" becomes "me"? "She" and "me" are object pronouns, in other words they can be either direct objects or indirect objects (objects of the proposition).
So yes, "Me" and "Her" do, in fact, replace nouns, but they only replace objects, not subjects.
Yeah, and the dictionary also thinks that the plural of "box" is "boxes". The word "boxen" isn't anywhere in the damn book! Who ever listens to that thing anyway.
So I suppose you wouldn't consider releasing smallpox "a serious threat to anyone's life", since, after all, the government has enough vaccines for everyone, so it's within their power to prevent a smallpox outbreak. Get with it man.
Thousands? Over the last few *years*? You've got to be kidding me. Thousands of patents have been issued in the past few *weeks*. The trademark and patent office puts out a book every single week which lists all the patents and trademarks issued since the last book. The book is always at least 1000 pages long.
Unfortunately, most of the people who have any power to change the patent system are quite happy with things as they are. And of the people who don't have that power, most of them don't really understand the problem, and therefore they don't really care.
I'm not exactly sure I understand the "idiocy" of property laws. Only intellectual property. Are you talking about property in general or intellectual property? If you're talking about property in general, please explain.
When you look at refrigerators that can be networked, that are available today, it's so useless, that just the thought expended on going and buying that type of fridge makes it not worth it.
However, once networking technology is completely seamless and dirt dirt cheap, it will likely just be built in.
So when I hear these stories about refrigerators being restocked automatically by sensing when you run out of milk or something, I think it's really dumb. I'm not gonna go out and get something like that. But when it's good enough it will just be built in.
You know, I'm almost always giving people the exact same language, and I strongly agree with you.
However, in this case, while there might not be a difference between "right" and "wrong", there are certain rules about how people *understand* the grammar that they hear, based upon observations. That's what the "rules" of grammar are. So just like the word "you" is the same as the subject and object (unlike "He" which becomes "Him" when it's the object), so should "who". The only people who say "whom" use it as an artificial rule superficially added on top of their true language processors. So noone would say "I gave it to he," but people say "Who did you give to?" even though 'Who' is the object.
So you're right, the "rules" of language are *descriptive* and not *prescriptive*.
But your complaint doesn't really apply here. It's kind of like a "misplaced modifier"
There is nothing *wrong* about the following sentence: "They *only* saw each other during meals"
However, according to the *descriptive* rules of grammar, if you are trying to say that they didn't see anyone else but each other during their meals you should say: "They saw *only* each other during meals."
And if you mean to say that they never see each other except during their meals you should say: "They saw each other *only* during meals"
I am saying this not based on "some arbitrary notion of how people should use language," but based on my understanding of what sort of syntax is commonly used in English.
So the difference between: Case { Western Reserve} University, as opposed to {Case Western} Reserve University
Is not about what is correct and what is incorrect. Neither of them are correct or incorrect, but they just say different things.
The second one says there something called a "Reserve University" and that CWRU is such a University.
Yes, "A language is just a set of conventions for communicating". And based on the conventions of modern American English, CWRU is "Case { Western Reserve} University" and not "{Case Western} Reserve University".
Well sometimes forks happen, and they are competing forks. Sometimes there is just a fundamental difference of opinion about what approach they should be taking, and they decide to split, even though their goals are the same.
Slashdot Mirror
We are Us.
By the way, that *never* works right.
Yes, but is Nvidia *the* videocard maker because they have exclusive ownership through legal privilege, or because they command supply, or because of concerted action? No, they are *the* videocard maker for none of these reasons. It's not about "almost". They don't fit the definition. There is no "almost" concerted action, or "almost" command of supply, or "almost" exclusive ownership. They aren't a monopoly, that's silly.
Besides the fact that it's perfectly legal to modify your cassette player, if you could figure out how, to play CDs. That's the real crux of the issue.
I have an even better idea. Keep numbers for yourself, and make the words public for anyone to see.
The jist is right, except you're a little off with one thing. The Supreme Court has the ultimate say in how the law is defined and what can be considered a law or not, but technically, they are not in charge of enforcement. Enforcement (of federal laws) is dealt with by the executive branch.
NO. Freeloaders do not KILL contributers. They do not "take away" contributers. The resources I was referring to was the software. Anyone can take and use the software without diminishing anyone else's ability to use it.
Stop being stupid. Are you trying to say that if the software *weren't* available for free, then this "freeloader" would've been a contributer? That's crap. In fact, making the software open will likely find you more contributers.
Sorry, but your freeloader was *never* a "potential contributer". He's not taking away anything. You're equating taking away resources and not adding to resources. They're not the same. Freeloaders do not lower the number of contributers, they simply don't contribute.
He did NOT say there is no marginal cost of production. He said there is no marginal cost of DISTRIBUTION.
A freeloader is not a contributer. A freeloader is one who diminishes the availability of the resources for everyone else. Since there is no scarcity it doesn't matter if there are freeloaders.
My point is, it's not like you need one contributer for each freeloader. All you need is a certain number of contributers, and it doesn't matter how many freeloaders there are; freeloaders do not diminish what is available for everyone else.
Open source is successful even though it's just done by hobbyists, in their free time, who spend the rest of their time making money from a salary.
Imagine if public organizations funded open source programming, kind of like how universities are funded to do research. This would mean that these people who love doing open source work would be able to devote their time to it. That would be really great.
See these posts:
this one
and this one
this one too
Yes, but google asks you: "Did you mean "dammit""?
Um, actually no. I don't get caught up in grammatical flames, because I feel as long as you get the point across it's fine. Kind of like how I don't mind "Billy and me went to the store".
But if you're going to start getting technical, technically, you're wrong. "I" and "She" replace subject nouns. They are subject pronouns. "Me" and "Her" replace object pronouns.
"She gave it to me"
"I gave it to her"
See how "She" becomes "Her" and "I" becomes "me"? "She" and "me" are object pronouns, in other words they can be either direct objects or indirect objects (objects of the proposition).
So yes, "Me" and "Her" do, in fact, replace nouns, but they only replace objects, not subjects.
Dude, you're like: "No that statistic is wrong, and so was the question asked..." Did it occur to you that he was talking about a *different* study?
Yeah, and the dictionary also thinks that the plural of "box" is "boxes". The word "boxen" isn't anywhere in the damn book! Who ever listens to that thing anyway.
So I suppose you wouldn't consider releasing smallpox "a serious threat to anyone's life", since, after all, the government has enough vaccines for everyone, so it's within their power to prevent a smallpox outbreak. Get with it man.
Thousands? Over the last few *years*? You've got to be kidding me. Thousands of patents have been issued in the past few *weeks*. The trademark and patent office puts out a book every single week which lists all the patents and trademarks issued since the last book. The book is always at least 1000 pages long.
Unfortunately, most of the people who have any power to change the patent system are quite happy with things as they are. And of the people who don't have that power, most of them don't really understand the problem, and therefore they don't really care.
I'm not exactly sure I understand the "idiocy" of property laws. Only intellectual property. Are you talking about property in general or intellectual property? If you're talking about property in general, please explain.
I think this is what they were talking about.
When you look at refrigerators that can be networked, that are available today, it's so useless, that just the thought expended on going and buying that type of fridge makes it not worth it.
However, once networking technology is completely seamless and dirt dirt cheap, it will likely just be built in.
So when I hear these stories about refrigerators being restocked automatically by sensing when you run out of milk or something, I think it's really dumb. I'm not gonna go out and get something like that. But when it's good enough it will just be built in.
That's why I always use AMD chips with Intel chipsets
Blagh, first line should be "argument" not "language".
You know, I'm almost always giving people the exact same language, and I strongly agree with you.
However, in this case, while there might not be a difference between "right" and "wrong", there are certain rules about how people *understand* the grammar that they hear, based upon observations. That's what the "rules" of grammar are. So just like the word "you" is the same as the subject and object (unlike "He" which becomes "Him" when it's the object), so should "who". The only people who say "whom" use it as an artificial rule superficially added on top of their true language processors. So noone would say "I gave it to he," but people say "Who did you give to?" even though 'Who' is the object.
So you're right, the "rules" of language are *descriptive* and not *prescriptive*.
But your complaint doesn't really apply here. It's kind of like a "misplaced modifier"
There is nothing *wrong* about the following sentence: "They *only* saw each other during meals"
However, according to the *descriptive* rules of grammar, if you are trying to say that they didn't see anyone else but each other during their meals you should say: "They saw *only* each other during meals."
And if you mean to say that they never see each other except during their meals you should say: "They saw each other *only* during meals"
I am saying this not based on "some arbitrary notion of how people should use language," but based on my understanding of what sort of syntax is commonly used in English.
So the difference between:
Case { Western Reserve} University, as opposed to
{Case Western} Reserve University
Is not about what is correct and what is incorrect. Neither of them are correct or incorrect, but they just say different things.
The second one says there something called a "Reserve University" and that CWRU is such a University.
Yes, "A language is just a set of conventions for communicating". And based on the conventions of modern American English, CWRU is "Case { Western Reserve} University" and not "{Case Western} Reserve University".
Well sometimes forks happen, and they are competing forks. Sometimes there is just a fundamental difference of opinion about what approach they should be taking, and they decide to split, even though their goals are the same.
Cord? That's the best you can come up with?